Do you install Solar Panels?
madmadscientist
| Posted in Energy, Heating & Insulation on
Hello All,
I was wondering if anybody here actaully installs solar panels full time or even fairly often? If so, what panels do you think are best and why and what inverters do you like and why? There’s on place local to me who uses Mitsubishi and Sunpower Modules with the SunnyBoy invertor. They did not like the uni-solar panels at all-said they were not durable.
Thanks,
Daniel Neuman
Oakland CA
Crazy Home Owner
Replies
I have an outback inverter and i am really pleased with it. It is quite, acts as a great charger, has the ability to be reapared by swapping out computer boards. It also comes with a mate that tell you eroors and enables you to program the inverter to your battery bank and let you net meter. The whole outback system is well worth the investment. I have 6, 85 watt shell panels that are manageable size and fit well on a solar tracker.
What is a solar tracker?
blue
It's a device used to keep the panels oriented toward the sun as much as possible which increases the efficiency.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_trackerSteve.
A solar tracker is a mount for PV panels. The tracker rotates and follows the suns path and increases your solar hours.
We are considering solar panels for the school project.
We have 11000 sq ft of roof to collect. How efficient is solar at 110 Pearl st, Oscoda, MI 48750. That's a northern MI climate.
blue
Most of the time, the payback on a solar panel is longer than the lifetime of the panel.The exceptions are when the government is helping with some really big tax incentives, or if you are so far away from everything that running wires is out of the question.
I'm not sure about the truthiness of that statement. One of the sites I was looking at today said that it took a panel from 2-4yrs to payback the amount of energy used in its manufacture. It also said that total system payback for a residential system was about 8-10 years. And thats if the price of electricity does not go up at all in the next 10 years...Its a long term investment to be sure but the panels are expected to last ~30years and they are warrentied for 20.Daniel Neuman
Oakland CA
Crazy Home Owner
mad,
I subscribe to Home power, pretty good magazine. Take a look at their web site. http://www.homepower.com . Back in the late 70's and early 80's I worked for a solar heating company. All of our systems where Hot h2O. They worked very well. They seem to have more bang for the buck still to this day.
There is a huge demand for the solar panels in parts of Europe due to some government mandates and that has caused the price of the solar panels in increase somewhat. The price is expected to stay high for at least another year.
The current cost of the panels is about $5 a watt (peak power). Add inverters and mounting racks and your are at $6 a watt. Add installation and you closer to $6.50 a watt. Which makes a 1KW system costs around $6,500.
That 1KW (peak power) system will produce about 5KW hours in the summer and closer to 2KW hours in the winter. Assuming you have short winters, we will go with 4KW as an average per day for our calculations.
In my neighborhood, electricity costs about $.15 a kilowatt hour. That $6,500 system will produce about (4 * 1 KW / hour * $.15) = 60 cents worth of electricity per day. That makes the payback period somewhere around 30 years. Which means it is giving you about a 2.4% return on your investment.
I want solar for my house, but it just does not make sense yet.
There is a huge demand for the solar panels in parts of Europe due to some government mandates and that has caused the price of the solar panels in increase somewhat. The price is expected to stay high for at least another year.
Germany is where all the solar panels are going. They have amazing gov't incentive programs there and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. From what I have read the panel manufacturers got caught with their pants down and have had to build new manufacturing facilities to meet demand. This is causing a temp shortage of panels which has caused the prices to increase. I think that the final outcome will be that the panels will come way down in price as the economies of scale come into play.
Right now in the states CA is the major market for solar panels because of the gov't sponsors rebates. I'm sure the payback numbers I mentioned took that into account. But really economies of scale also come into play on payback too a 2000W system doesn't cost twice a 1000W system and a 4000W system doesn't cost twice a 2000W system. The bigger commercial systems have payback in ~5years ( In CA).
Daniel Neuman
Oakland CA
Crazy Home Owner
CAP has connected a number of them. I don't know if he has installed any of the actual panels, but I think that he might have some on his house.Do an advanced search using CAP as the poster..
.
Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
Daniel,
We have Sharp panels and inverter. SPG (fromerly Sun Power & Geothermal) in San Rafael installed our system. Penciled out to a 12-13 yr payback for a 3KW system with all incentives - we have good exposure and a decent roof slope which make a big difference in ROI.
SPG also uses several other inverters and panels, depending on site configuration, system size, etc. I think they will be your biggest competitor; the other big one in the Bay Area is Sun Light and Power. If you go on the California Energy Commission site there is a ton of info (you probably already knew that!) including size and value of installations by the installing company.
Note that this is CA, and contractor laws apply! Go back and re-read all the discussions in the Business folder regarding liability, risk, etc.
In my experience, much of the value-add of the installer was good sales capability (professional, fast and accurate response, alternatives w/payback calc's, etc.). They have a lot invested in their models and design programs to optimize their time and the installation. Also deep knowledge of all the rules & regs, ability to handle the whole permitting process, interfacing to the state for the rebate and to PG&E for the new meter, grid connect, etc.
Oh yea, they did a good install as well. Two days, 4 guys (one was a trainee IIRC). The lead was a licensed journeyman or master electrician. FYI, since it's DC from the panel to the inverter it must be all inconduit - so the fire dept doesn't accidently chop through it in a fire.
Not to rain on your idea, it's just that in my experience the install was the smallest part of the contract.
Wayne
Oh, yea - absolutely love it!! Got the new rate increase notice - I think my payback just droped by a year!
How do the batteries affect the economics of your system? Will they need replacement every few years, a lump sum expense?
-- J.S.
I don'[t have batteries; I'm grid-connected. My system looks like it will be a 12.5 yr payback.
With batteries, it would never pay back unless I was waaay off grid. You need a special room ($$), batteries are expensive and they need to be replaced every 5 years or so.
John Sprung. Let me tell you the source for some free or nearly so batteries.. Get in contact with some large industrail battery dealers. the kind they use in fork lifts etc..
Hospitals are required to have big standby power storage batteries and they are required to replace them periodically. 5 Years if my memory is correct..
Now a 5 year old standby power storage battery is a seriously heavy item. Tons!
On the other hand it will run a house for a week or more easily! You will have to pay scrap prices for it because the lead is valuable, but it's a tiny fraction of what they cost new..
Now bring it home and using great care lift it up and tip it upside down..Gently You'll want to catch the acid that runs out.. (set that aside) With all of the caps off each cell flush water up into the battery. (catch that runoff as well) No need to pollute, Careful, you don't want battery acid to give you a facial <G>
However after a few minutes of flushing mostly water will be coming out.. keep flushing untill all the white powder{Lead sulfate} has come out. (you can tell when the water running out is just as clear as the water going in)
Now gently roll it back over and after a day or so the acid will have settled out the lead sulfate in it (it's the white powder at the bottom) Using a turkey baster suck up all the acid being careful not to pick up any of the white powder and fill each cell equally. You will need to add some sulferic acid which most decent hardware store have untill each cell is just about filled to the top of the lead plates.. Now add some fresh clean distilled water.. You'll need to check the PH to get everything right. I can't remember the exact number to shoot for. but I'll check if you want..
Here's the good part, that freshened up battery should last you at leats 7 more years (my friends is still going great after 10 and when it starts to lose the ability to hold a charge freshen again..
Wha happens is the lead sulfate slowly falls off the lead and when it builds up enough to touch the bottom of the lead plates it shorts out.. Flush the sulfate and you've in effect got a new battery.. In a decade of use maybe 5% of the batteries lead is lost thru sulfation.. (lots of stuff goes into that number Ask if you want to know)
You can also use Forklift batteries but most companies replace them when they are much further along. In addition the jarring and bouncing of a forklift can weaken the plates or the dividers. They don't have as deep of cells because of size constrants so you may be flushing every 4-5 years instead of 7-10 years.
Finally few forklift batteries ever approach the total capacity that a stationary battery does..
Very interesting -- Thanks, Frenchy....
-- J.S.
John Sprung.
Actaully you might want to do things a bit in reverse.. Not all industrial battery companies sell standby power. I'd go vist a few local hospitals and find out what brand they buy. Often the company will have their label right on the battery or posted nearby, somebody might know who their source is..
That eliminates wasting time contacting companies that don't know what you are talking about..
You might use a couple of forklift batteries if the fleet is updating all at once and you can get a pair or more of the same size..
The number and size you want depends on how long you want to be able to run without recharging should bad weather prevent sunlite for an extended period of time..
MY friend has that big staionary battery as his back up and to back that up he had a Chinese made diesel generator he bought for an embarassingly low cost a decade ago.. He runs it on vegitable oil he gets for free! (all his vehicles are diesel and run on vegitable oil. he stops at a differant resturant every night on hs way home from work and he not only sucks their oil out, he get's paid a meal to do it.. :-)
Frenchy
Actually the larger batteries that hospitals use, or at least the ones that I used to design the tooling for Yusas were warranted for 20 years. That was 20 years non pro-rated and sold as sets. If one dies they all get replaced.
Only the little guys were replaced on 5 years cycles, mostly emergency lighting.
In a lot of installations they actually are not backup power supplies, but the actual power supplies that are continually being cycled & charged.
Needless to say we were having problems in the late 90's because if you have already gotten 20 years out of your power supply why not go for 25 since in many cases a new installation may run in the millions.
By the way in the morning of 9-11 we had just installed a new power supply across from the towers that worked beyond expectations keeping the phones in NY working.
Abe,
You are speaking about some really big hospitals. We're a bit more modest and While we do have the world famous Mayo bros. hospital most hospitals are more like big clinics. Flat rock Minnesota or Cowpizz Wisconsin's hospital tend to use oversized forklift batteries.. Just enough juice to run the operating room and some ventilator equipment for a few hours..
Worst case they can all fire up their John Deere tractors and point the headlites into the operatin' room.. <G>
did you read nanny's post? is her info wrong? what did it cost? what are the finance charges? how much lower is the bill?
don't get me wrong, i love the idea of solar power too, but if it actually paid back wouldn't contractors be falling all over themselves to finance your solar retrofit?
there is a lot of money in power generation, if i could make a profit by mounting my panels on your roof every house in the country would have them, and i would own them, because i would say just sign here and i will put them up for free, kind of like a mining rights thingy. and banks would be falling all over themselves to loan me the money to do it!
if i am missing something please straighten me out, i need the money
That same $6500 put into a long term CD at 5% would yield around $325 per year vs. energy value of around $210. So not only will the investment never pay itself back, but you will be losing a litle every second of every day.But there are at least two circumstances in which solar really does make sense;1) You want to be "off grid" and are willing to live with the inconveniences (like all high wattage appliances). Then you also save monthly power company basic charges and fees and taxes along with having to pay for all the power required to avoid those inconveniences. The system will pay for itself in a reasonable number of years then.2) If you place a great deal of value on your emotional well being and you are wracked with guilt over your contribution to global warming. Then it might be worth the cost to feel good about yourself - as long as you don't factor in the environmental cost of manufacturing the solar cells, giant batteries full of toxic chemicals and related materials.I love the idea of solar power - but not so much that I'm willing to set aside common sense.
That same $6500 put into a long term CD at 5% would yield around $325 per year vs. energy value of around $210. So not only will the investment never pay itself back, but you will be losing a litle every second of every day.
That depends a lot on what you are paying for electricity and how much you use. We, because of the two fishtanks and Koi pond use a LOT of electricity. We are bumped up into the $.35/kwh range from the base price of $.12 for a lot of the juice we use.
One of the installers suggested we put in a small array that would not cover all the juice we need but it would cover the most expensive juice we need and at ~.30 per KWH our payback would be 3x as fast.
Daniel Neuman
Oakland CA
Crazy Home Owner
thank you nannygee, well said!
You're welcome!As long as we're on the topic, here's another thing I've been wondering about;We have an area with a lot of wind power generators not too far away. Now, these things are HUGE! Blades 100' long. Mast 250' tall. Power hub the size of a class A motor home. Many tons of steel, deep footing, huge machinery involved in erecting the structure. Miles of wire. I assume that, while it will function many years, it will not last a century, much less forever.I love wind power - when it's windy. But the power grid needs to be generating electricity at full speed 24/7 whether it's windy or not, so it's hard to figure much savings big picture.But even if frequency of windy conditions were never an issue, how long would it take that windmill - blades blazing - to recoup the energy consumed to create it? I would really like to know.The only way "green" is going to grow is if it's real, and not emotional masturbation.
The only way "green" is going to grow is if it's real, and not emotional masturbation.
wow, thats an interesting way to put it. i like to think that a simpler way to say it might be when it makes financial sense, but yours is definitely deeper and thought provoking.
one thing though, i am pretty sure the power grid does not need to be generating full speed 24/7, rather just at the times of peak usage.
one of the problems power companies have is storing power. like with diablo canyon and PG&E, (pigs, goats, and elephants) at night when there is little power demand they use excess energy (they can't just shut the reactor off) to pump water up to be later released to fall through the pipeline leading to the generator (turbine) for peak times. i think this setup is at hetch hetchy or some other sierra location where PG&E has a dam/water power generation setup.
sorry for the vague explanation, i'm no expert. but the point is they have spent a huge amount of money to pump huge amounts of water up and hold it for a later release as a way of storing electricity. now if they will spend money on that, and it is cost effective, you know they will build the poop out of solar when that is cost effective!
"i like to think that a simpler way to say it might be when it makes financial sense"That's not as simple as it sounds. Often green can make financial sense only if it's heavily subsidized by government or utility company, or whatever. It may save YOU money, but whether or not it's saving society money can be a much trickier question to answer. The frustrating thing to me is that it doesn't strike me as a particularly difficult question to answer (if you have the stats at your fingertips), yet you never see the numbers run that way. As for power plants, I'm no expert either, but I'm aware of no efficient, large scale method for storing electricity, therefore it has to be continuously generated at whatever level can reasonably be expected to be needed - whether it's actually needed or not. That's why nightime electric rates are often a fraction of the daytime rates - because the power is being produced but tends not to be fully utilized.
So you think that the govt does not subsidize coal, oil, and natural gas production? The fed govt provides substantial subsidies (direct and indirect) for fossil fuel production and processing (oil refining). Tax structure (incentives and deductions), military and political actions, etc.It's just that these subsidies have existed for a long time and the subsidies for renewable energy haven't. And the fossil-fuel industry is extremely powerful and good at lobbying for continuing and increasing subsidies for themselves, and against subsidies for the renewable energy sector.About the issue raised by another poster concerning the loss of electrical power due to transmission--a relatively new field is "distributed generation", where electricity is generated close to or at the point of use. Cogeneration (a fossil-fueled generator at a manufacturing plant, where the waste heat from the generator is used as process heat), mini-turbines or micro-turbines fueled by natural gas as peaking units for a manufacturing plant or shopping center are examples. These are lower-polluting and while not exactly most people's idea of "clean" or "green" energy, can be lower polluting and more efficient than bringing a new, distant coal fired plant on line. Probably one of the most clever ideas I've heard for distributed generation comes from Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute. Imagine a situation where you have electric cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells. You give them to people who commute to a big office building to work. At the building, people park them, and hook up the car to a refueling hose, and to a power cord. The fuel cells of all the electric cars then become stationary generators, providing electricity to the building! At the end of the day, the car is refueled and ready for the commute home and back the next day. One of the beauties of this is that the fuel cells all stay "on" and working efficiently all day, as a big distributed generation source. Another is that the hydrogen fuel infrastructure only needs to be at large buildings, not at every corner gas station.I've heard Lovins make the case, and he is persuasive. He is a very reputable scientist and economist. A bit of a paradigm shift, sure but technically feasible right now. I wonder what we could have done with the billions of dollars spent over the last few years in the Middle East, if we'd used it to move towards energy independence instead.Cliff
"So you think that the govt does not subsidize coal, oil, and natural gas production?"That's a good point and it begs a larger (and as far as I know completely unanswered) question;"How much energy does it take to produce the product we use to consume energy"In other words - using some standard measurement of energy - how much does it take to:1) explore, extract, distribute, refine and redistribute oil?
2) ditto natural gas?
3) ditto coal?
4) ditto nuclear?5) establish & distribute hydro?
6) ditto geothermal?
7) ditto wind?Basically the question is how "efficient" is it? (yes, I know there are other factors like pollution and sustainability to address, but one thing at a time)Athough I don't know the answer, it seems to me common sense requires that #1,2,3&4 above require substancially less energy input to produce than it's output provides - otherwise the whole system would collapse, right? Or would never have started to begin with.But I am curious about the efficiency levels of the others, especialy wind. I would like someone to lay out all the steps involved in manufactiring, setting up and running the system and turn that into an energy "cost" and weigh that against it's suspected energy producing potential. I want to believe that when all is said and done it comes out positive. But I don't know, and it ought to be a simple enough question to answer.Another example from my area; We're big ethenol producers (gas via corn). There was an accusation a year or so ago that ethanol required more than a gallon of fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol - and given how machinery-intensive farming is plus the complex distillation process, it's easy to buy into that notion. If true, it suggests ethanol is a highly inefficient energy to put it mildly. Then proponents of the fuel claimed the accusation was false. Newspapers reported the controversy - a little. BUT DID NOT BOTHER TO FIND A DISINTERESTED THIRD PARTY TO SIMPLY ANSWER THE DARN QUESTION!Wouldn't we sort of WANT to know the answer? Isn't it relevant? Or are we simply afraid that the answer might not be what we want it to be?
NannyGee,Well, you're raised some excellent questions.I agree that it's important to look at net energy balance for a source of whether it be electricity and kW-hrs, natural gas and therms, or some other measure of energy. This has been done--it's a type of energy lifecycle analysis. IIRC, Home Power magazine recently had an article on photovoltaic electricity energy balance, and also the economics.You might try the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) for info--Lovins and the others there are all about what makes sense, not just what sounds "green".And the California Energy Commission is also a source of reliable info on energy.I have heard that to produce ethanol from corn, it takes more fossil fuel energy than the ethanol contains. So it's a net loss. Well, except for the corn farmer and ADM...Now, if ethanol could be used as the source of much of the energy to grow and harvest the corn and produce and transport the ethanol, then we'd be coming out ahead, in terms of ethanol being a renewable energy source. I think we're a ways away from that point today, so the main benefit is reduced air pollutin from E-85 ethanol/gasoline blends.One thing that the RMI has been promoting for decades is energy conservation. They make a convincing case that it's less expensive for a power company to subsidize energy efficient CFL lightbulbs and appliances than to build new generating stations and transmission/distribution infrastructure. It's so simple, it took a long time for power companies to adopt the approach. The Calif Energy Commission takes it a step further, and has regulations (Title 24) that mandate some pretty stringent (but simple) energy conservation features for new homes in California.Lastly, you've hit on something that really disappoints and often irritates me--reporters (especially newspaper reporters) who just put together a collecton of statements and never dig deeper to get to the "facts", or even try to sort out different positions or claims and reach a conclusion as to which has the most merit, or at least give the reader enough facts to do so.Cliff
Yes, it would be simpler for them to promote energy
conservation rather than new production. But they are
in the business of building new facilities, regardless.
" ...reporters who just put together a collecton of statements and never dig deeper to get to the "facts", or even try to sort out different positions or claims and reach a conclusion as to which has the most merit"If reporters actually did that then the folks on the wrong side of the argument would just call them "biased" and that is something reporters are trying desperately to avoid. So instead we have meaninless "reporting" and very little truth to be had.Thanks for the RMI & CEC ideas.
<blockquote>I have heard that to produce ethanol from corn, it takes more fossil fuel energy than the ethanol contains. So it's a net loss. Well, except for the corn farmer and ADM...<p>Now, if ethanol could be used as the source of much of the energy to grow and harvest the corn and produce and transport the ethanol, then we'd be coming out ahead, in terms of ethanol being a renewable energy source. I think we're a ways away from that point today, so the main benefit is reduced air pollutin from E-85 ethanol/gasoline blends.</blockquote>Arguments abound about the net of corn-based ethanol - but if it's positive, it isn't by a lot. See articles in "How the World Works" by Andrew Leonard on Salon.com.Getting the energy to produce ethanol from ethanol doesn't change the equation - it's net positive or it's not. If it takes 1.5MBTU to produce 1MBTU, it doesn't matter if the BTU come from ethanol or fossil fuels. Now, if it takes 0.9MBTU to produce 1MBTU, you can produce it with (little or) no fossil fuel input - but it's darn unlikely to be cost-effective using ethanol as a fuel source.
Yup, exactly.
It's hard to beat the ol' dinosaur juice, given it's energy density, and the amount of effort it takes to extract it. That makes me think--how much energy does it take on the average to produce a barrel of oil, and at the extremes?
I'll check the salon link, thanks.
Cliff
Another problem the power companies have is that two
thirds of the power generated is lost during the
transmission process.
two thirds of the power generated is lost
That would explain Global Warming.
Which also causes me to do some research before I post blanket statements like that:
United States Electricity - Consumption: 3.656 Trillion KWH (2003)United States Area - Total: 9,631,420 SQ KMAlaska Area - Total: (1,717,855 Km²)Area Continental US =~ 8M sq KM
Done some crude math, 'cuz it's just Orders of Magnitude.
4T/8M = .5M KWH/sq KM = .5 KWH/sq Meter = 12KWD/sq meter (KWD=KWDay)Plus loss (at 2/3) = 36KWD/sq meter Generated
Average insolation US = 5KWD/sq meter
Conclusions: Electricity dumps at least 2.5 times as much heat as the Sun does.At worst, by your 2/3 loss assumption, it dumps 7 times as much.
Note: PEV panels add zero heat to the sun's effect.
CONSUMPTION - United States (1998)
1998 CONSUMPTION QUAD BTU
Percent of Total Consumption
1998 DEMAND in NATIVE UNITS
Oil
36.57
38.8 %
18.92 million barrels/day
Natural Gas
21.84
23.2 %
21.34 tcf/year
Coal
21.62
22.9 %
1038 million short tons/year
Nuclear
7.16
7.6 %
674 billion kWh/year
Hydroelectric
3.60
3.8 %
344 billion kWh/year
Geothermal
0.32
0.3 %
75.7 billion kWh/year (total other3)
Biomass
3.05
3.2 %
Solar
0.07
0.07 %
Wind
0.04
0.04 %
TOTAL
94.27
100 %
1 EIA Annual Energy Review 1998 2 EIA International Energy Annual 1998 3 Includes biomass, geothermal, solar, wind.
Note: Italics were Googled
SamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business....."anonymous". . .segundo <!----><!---->
Edited 1/8/2007 11:59 am by SamT
> twothirds of the power generated is lost during the transmission process.
Very interesting -- what's the source of that info? I remember trying to find that out back in the 1970's energy crisis, and back then couldn't find anything solid.
-- J.S.
The two thirds number is from Tokyo Gas, from their
promotional literature for their Micro CHP (residential
gas cogeneration) program. They claim that, through use of
localized sources such as gas cogeneration, the transmission
loss goes down from 63% to 33%.
How interesting that even after 30 years, the best we can find is a marketing number from a foreign vendor....
-- J.S.
Googled "Electricity Transmission Losses"
From: http://www.answers.com/topic/electric-power-transmissionor from: Wikipedia. Same article.
Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 [1], and in the UK at 7.4% in 1998. [2]
From: http://www.energetics.com/gridworks/grid.html
Transmission and distribution losses are related to how heavily the system is loaded. U.S.-wide transmission and distribution losses were about 5% in 1970, and grew to 9.5% in 2001, due to heavier utilization and more frequent congestion
Also: (same link)
America operates a fleet of about 10,000 power plants. The average thermal efficiency is around 33%. Efficiency has not changed much since 1960 because of slow turnover of the capital stock and the inherent inefficiency of central power generation that cannot recycle heat.
And: (same link)
In 1940, 10% of energy consumption in America was used to produce electricity. In 1970, that fraction was 25%. Today it is 40%,
So: (me) For every 600KW of consumer use, ~60KW went to Transmission losses, 133KW was used to produce just that 660KW, another 267KW was lost as heat at the plant.
400kw of fuel gives us 600KW of usable juice. I think you could arrange those numbers to show 2/3 of something.
Numbers don't total 100% due to rounding. As in; my head is going rounding and rounding right now.
If we could just reach 66% plant efficiency, we could get twice as much juice from the same fuel.SamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business....."anonymous". . .segundo <!----><!---->
Well, that's odd. I don't see how Tokyo Gas can be off by
an order of magnitude on this number. I'll have to follow up.
2/3 of the energy is lost in transmission? Not likely. Transformers are fairly efficient devices and most of the big ones are better than 95%. So if we have four steps between the generator and your house, the loss in the grid is about 20%-25%. Power companies get paid to spin your meter not heat the air, so they would be foolish to allow any more losses than necessary.
Well...I'm replying to a post about 30 posts back, I forget to whom tyhis should be addressed...One other thing when considering the payback time of solar generated electricity, is that at least here in CT, you can seel your "green credits" to a group that pays, I think 6 cents per kwh.Between saving from not spending in the first, place, reselling what you don't use due to your excess going back to the grid, the green credits...plus federal, state, and even local subsidies...it's worth looking in to.One other item regarding the "is it worth it" when comparing the commercial windmill sites: It's not just the kwh generated to kwh saved comparison to make regarding if it's economically feasible.By generating power with wind, you're also eliminating the cost of building additional generating stations.
NanyGee,
Are you in Minnesota?
Southwest Minnesota is building massive wind generating plants that have a real payback. You start to get your check day after the tower is ready to come on line.. That's a profit check over and above the cost to build and operate them.. Farmers are now getting more for the wind in their fields than the beans..
There is a glitch in the system but it's political not economic. When it's windy they simply shut down the coal fired plants or oil burners. When the wind dies down they go back on line.. Nuclear power they lower the rods or raise them as demand increases or decreases.. same with hydro and every other system..
I make no claims to be an expert at power production, but I have some doubts about your assertion there.If the farmers with windmills on their land are getting paybacks right away then either they didn't pay for the mill or uncle sam did or the uncle sam forced the electric company to pay for it - because those suckers cost upwards of $1,000,000 to manufacture, set up, and connect to the grid. At $.10/Kwh (roughly) that's 10,000,000 Kwh necessary to simply pay for the thing. I have no idea how much electricity they produce, but I'm guessing it would take a while to produce that much. I would like to know though. I'll bet someone knows.But even if - just pulling a number out of my a$$ here - typical wind conditions would produce that much electricity in 10 years, leaving all future production as "profit", that's not really how it works. That windmill juice simply gets added to the power grid which may or MAY NOT need it. If no one happens to be sucking it up at that particular moment, it's actually going to waste.Now, I suppose power plants do have some capacity to ramp up and down production to meet demand, but it's not like there is an on and off switch there. It's not like "here comes a nice gust of wind, tell Tacoma and Witchita to shut down. Wait...oh, it's gone now, tell them to ramp up again. Wait...here's another gust...etc" Bottom line, electricity is produced at a fairly constant rate (and is consumed at a fairly constant rate) and any continually fluctuating addition to the system will go largely to waste.This is something the general public doesn't realize. My wife, for example just recently discovered that excess electricity isn't simply stored in giant vats somewhere. I suspect this is not uncommon.I want green to work. I want it to REALLY work. Not just give me a warm fuzzy feeling while I believe it is working.
The farmers are getting paid rent for the land for the wind turbines and the access roads. Not for generating electricity.The "power producting company" is the one that builds and sells the electricity. Often it is a 3rd party company that in turn has long term contracts with the power companies.And the turbines really need constant moderate winds. They have to shut down in high winds.And you are right about the power generators. That is why that want contant winds and not gust of wind..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
I'm not sure I am just now learning about this myself. It seems like its new enough or that the people that do it for a living are not online on these forums as I have really found squat in the archives here and at JLC.Daniel Neuman
Oakland CA
Crazy Home Owner
I don't, but a client's having a system installed. Picts might interest you. He lists details in the captions.
View Image View Image View Image
Edited 12/13/2006 8:00 am ET by CloudHidden
View Image
What did you decide to do to get access to the castle deck? This is the design you posted here, isn't it?
View Image
I love that fireplace. Ripping a hole in the wall ala "Nash Bridges."SamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business....."anonymous". . .segundo <!----><!---->
Yes, same house. http://www.itsa.info/photos.itsa.info/displayimage.php?pos=-1108 shows the access. Out a door from the loft and up a spiral. Plenty of room on the deck. Deck coated with polyurea.
Cloud do you know about what the cost would be to build a shotcrete dome house compared to a framed house?busta"It ain't da seafood dat makes ya fat anyway -- it's da batta!"
If done to the same level of finish, should be comparable.